I’ve been on here a good while. I’ve ticked beers for a lot longer. I’d like to think I know one beer from another and I’ve added hundreds to the database. So why on earth is a beer I added, instantly given a different style, without anyone even having a clue as to what it’s like?
The beer in question is this…
I added it as a session IPA, and it’s immediately been changed to a Pale Ale - Flavoured. What’s flavoured about it? It’s CBD infused. That’s not a flavouring.
Please revert it to the style it warrants. Thanks in advance.
I had the name of a beer I listed last night changed.
It was spelt deliberately wrong on the can.
Someone auto-corrected to the correct spelling (incorrectly).
Feel for you mate.
Not to go into details, I wasn’t the one editing… but which beer?
Looks like @mr_fr0g did the edit on that one so We should leave up to him.
Jeez… they should’ve known better than to “fix” that. Okay now?
It must be a thankless task being an admin. You amend things with lets say a 95% success rate with no thanks and the 5% of times you get it wrong you get castrated with a ‘do you know who I am?’ line.
Beer makes people grumpy I think!
Obviously, I was asking Simon
I’ll add my four penneth (makes me sound like Jezza using old language like that !) as an admin.
One thing some users get fixated on when adding to RB is styles and ABV splits that we typically use on RB.
For instance if a brewer calls a beer a DIPA and it’s say 7.2/3/4 % … we normally view a DIPA as 8%+ on RB … I often see such entries going in as IPA.
I will change this to a DIPA as per the brewers intent.
Sure if it’s <6.5% then I’ll call it in IPA most likely.
However overlap is fine.
I think it’s slightly offensive to professional brewers that we add beers as different styles to how they call their beers, just because we on RB have our own guidelines for ABV’s vs styles.
They are just that … guidelines NOT laws or hard rules.
This is probably the one area where users may see their entries altered by myself … hoppy beer styles in relation to ABV’s and how brewers market their beers.
Steady on old chap my English may be dated but I’m not crapulous all the time!
It’s not beer that makes me grumpy. I’m grumpy anyway.
I didn’t set off on the “do you know who I am” line, but I do think that a CBD infused beer at 4% is closer to a session IPA than a flavoured beer, and asked for it changing back.
I offer corrections up to the admins (who I think do a great job), to do my bit to keep the database tidy.
It got my goat so I started this thread. That’s all.
I know I will sound cocky, but honestly I think most experienced admins in rb know more about beers and styles than average professional brewers. The fact is that active rb users drink a lot beer from many different brewers. The average professional brewers don’t drink as much, and often limit themselves with their own beers or beers from friends. The book description of a style only goes so far… Especially if your idea of the style is a beer based solely on the book description.
Don’t disagree with knowledge but we lack credibility as a site (or should I say more credibility) when a brewer calls a beer a DIPA, UT call a beer a DIPA, and therefore 99.5% of people drinking it will consider it a DIPA and we assign IPA to the style as it’s 7.4% and not within our suggested range of 8% plus.
I’m talking about ABV breakdown on the common hoppy styles here.
The semantics of what style a brewer believes they are putting out is much wider ranging across the style spectrum.
I agree with that. I used to think that these hard limits are good, but not anymore. There are multiple reasons, and it is longer discussion about what styles are and what they aren’t.
So to the beer in question… The brewery calls it a pale ale, don’t see much reason to dispute that.
The “Flavored” substyle is debatable depending on how you see CBD I guess. I’ve not had a CBD infused beer before but if it really doesn’t add any discernible flavour element then is the catch all Pale Ale style a better fit for this beer perhaps? It doesn’t seem to definitively fit in any of the others.
CBD oil is known to taste “earthy” possibly in a similar way to how a hop leaf could taste “earthy”. I’d hazard a guess that the brewer hasn’t made the addition so that the beer would gain earthy flavours. I suspect it’s been added more for the supposed health benefits, or maybe just for pure novelty.
I’d only really use the style if it was a flavouring along the lines of fruit purée or vanilla that had been added.
Anyway, it’s not been changed, and nor do I expect it to. I’m guessing the case is closed.
I’ve noticed a fair few beers I’ve added lately have been altered. I’ve asked for a couple changing but someone knows better than I do apparently. I’ll keep quiet in future…
You only raised the issue 18 hours ago Gary.
Not every admin checks in here every day.
I’ll toss in another one whilst we discussing ‘flavoured’ pale or IPA.
Since the inception of these styles I’ve noticed a trend develop that’s worth making users aware of.
These styles should only be used when brewers are specifically infusing/adding to the beer (we can only go by their description) with a given flavour or flavours.
In terms of an IPA we need to be careful when a brewer doesn’t specifically mention additional ingredients, above and beyond the norm, and just lists a description of how the beer tastes.
Eg … west coast IPA with aromas/taste of melon, pineapple and grapefruit.
This could be any IPA that I have drank over the past 25 years.
For a flavoured version of APA or IPA we should be looking for specific mention of added ingredients above and beyond the norm expected for the style.
I’ve seen some added recently as ‘flavoured’ that are just standard IPA in my book where the user has clearly jumped on ‘flavoured’ in terms of how the brewer described the taste/aroma of said beer.
This is no criticism … things are often slightly blurred in the assignation of styles but just to give you some more insight as to why a beer may get changed from the style you added it as.